> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # The Truth about Climate Change – Part III - URL: https://goodoil.news/the-truth-about-climate-change-part-iii/ - Published: 2020-11-14T00:30:00.000Z - Updated: 2020-11-13T22:25:24.000Z - Author: Guest Post - Tags: NZ, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2024-07-17 02:38 **John Rofe** #### **The climate fraud may have been busted but there is no justice or punishment for the perpetrators** **Why** do so many people deliberately lie to the general public, and how do they get away with it? Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka “Climate Change”) is not just the biggest fraud in history but also the most decentralised. At its core is a group, alternatively called “The New World Order” or the “Davos brigade.” These folk consist of the heads of global corporations, the richest and most powerful people on earth (often of a socialist persuasion), politicians, toady scientists and the drivers of the pseudo-green movement. Now that the globalist billionaires have taken financial control of the mainstream media, there are no restraints on officially sanctioned lies. So much for the “free press”! This is analogous to the 17th Century problem that Galileo Galilei struck. The courts have been corrupted by biased testimony and even judges aren’t immune. Even our children are being taught that right is wrong. There are two major climate factors at play during the Holocene interglacial period. The first is the role of the solar cycles that can easily be seen in the impacts they have had over the centuries that have been extensively documented. The second is the role of the water cycle which has been subjected to a range of lies and misdirection. A simple example of misdirection appeared when Professor **Myles Allen** of Oxford University, who would likely flatter himself that he is a “humanist” (i.e. supporting the notion that humans can alter the climate), coached a San Francisco judge during the trial of the oil companies for the supposed damage caused by carbon emissions. In his series of video tutorials, he casually points out that carbon dioxide (“CO2”) causes global warming, even though it provides less than half of one per cent of the atmosphere. The presentation was all about CO2. There are two problems with Prof. Allen’s statement. First, there is no empirical scientific evidence that CO2 causes climate change (despite trillions of dollars having been spent over the last 40 years to try to find evidence). Second, he is materially astray in his estimation of the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. It actually comprises 415ppm at the time of writing, or 0.0415% of the atmosphere. The trace CO2 gas that he represents as “less than half of one per cent” is just **a tiny one twenty-fourth of one per cent.** He told the judge it causes 80% of warming. In a later chapter of this same video series, he alludes as a vague generality to the “well-known problems for the climate” from emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). I can’t say he is inaccurate as to volume, because he doesn’t even bother to tell us that CH4 is only about 1.8 parts per million or 230 times less in atmospheric concentration than CO2. Of course N2O is many times rarer than CH4. But what he also fails to tell us is that all of these gases are dominated in the atmosphere by water vapour (H2O) and while each “blameworthy gas” (in other words the CO2, CH4 and N2O) does have radiative effects, the efficacy of each is orders of magnitude less than the efficacy of water vapour. But water vapour also has 28 non-radiative thermal properties as well. Although each part of the water cycle plays a major role in the climate, the combined effect doesn’t rate much mention from the UN IPCC-centric scientists. All three “blame-worthy” gases together have no identifiable impact on either our daily or weekly weather, and increase by such a small percentage each year that they don’t change much from time to time, or from place to place. The academics fall into one of two categories. Those who go along with the UN IPCC doctrine (which I believe to be a fraud) and who therefore get employed by government agencies and universities, and those who disagree who are marginalised and deliberately prevented from publishing their works…and often simply sacked. Courts of law are obliged to select expert witnesses from what has become orthodoxy whether right or wrong. Professor Myles Allen tried to influence the judge and us, due to what may at best be described as his unconscious bias, or else as the worst of all scientific crimes, “Pay for Play”. Whether he has studied the solar sciences or not is unclear, but every supporter of the climate fraud has either through ignorance or design, supported Anthropogenic Global Warming without empirical scientific evidence against clear and better evidence that the sun rules our planet’s existence and far more likely drives our climate. But unconsciously, even Wikipedia supports the Great Global Warming fraud. Water vapour gets no mention as a major constituent part of the atmosphere, because Wikipedia only provides estimates of the proportionate contents of **dry** air, thereby failing to point out that **always and everywhere, water vapour exists in greater or lesser quantities in Earth’s atmosphere.** Yet behind nitrogen and oxygen it is probably 3rd densest, at about 1%. If not, it is just behind or level pegging with argon, which is approximately 0.9%. **Even photosynthesis is not safe** when negligent or improper misdirection is used by eminent scientists. **Plant photosynthesis** involves taking in CO2 through pores in leaves and water from the plants’ roots. Then by adding light, the process of photosynthesis provides the plant sugars that enable plants to grow, flourish, bear fruit and procreate. The equation taught to me (and seemingly to Judith Collins too) at school was: 6 CO2 \+ 6 H2O + light –> C6H12O6 \+ 6 O2 It seems that for modern teachers of a “progressive socialist” persuasion, both the role of water and the role of CO2 can be either magnified or downplayed to suit their narrative. Each simplistic narrative on climate change that is published either changes or de-emphasises the truth about light, carbon, water, carbon dioxide or oxygen to suit their purpose. This is important because CO2 is not a pollutant, yet we are told it is. The only reason for bracketing CH4 and N2O with CO2 is to justify UN member governments’ waste of time and resources supporting their fraud. Otherwise sooner or later, people will wake up to the truth that more CO2 in the atmosphere is good and less is bad for our natural environment. So why then do they promote their deliberate and cynical agenda? **The three things which are absolutely essential for all complex life on Earth to exist are:** - water - oxygen - carbon dioxide No other planet has yet been found which possesses these three essentials for life, yet we have grown so complacent and so greedy that we can delude ourselves that we are all modern-day “King Canutes”. Not only do we claim we can hold back the tides (which we do with dykes and land reclamations), but we will supposedly flood cities simply by exhaling CO2 and running automobiles. In anyone’s book, that is nonsense. 540 million years ago, CO2 was apparently about 7,000ppm and the first plants to grow became gigantic. Along with that came gigantism for the dinosaurs, birds and fish until 66 million years ago when an asteroid strike ushered in large scale extinctions. With each successive ice age after that, the atmospheric quantity of CO2 was reduced and with the demise of every successive fossil generation, it was progressively removed from the air and seas and sequestered in rocks and ocean sediment. **Its scarcity threatens the carbon cycle.** Today, and while the oceans contain 50 times the atmospheric level of CO2, they are warm and so they are still out-gassing. Yet before the beginning of the Quaternary Ice Age 34 million years ago, the level of atmospheric CO2 had fallen to below 600ppm when Antarctica froze over and ever since that time had been at ever lower levels until it reached an all-time low of 180ppm at the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago. During the warm period preceding that of the Holocene, 120,000 years ago (called the “Eemian”), the temperature was much warmer than today and yet the maximum atmospheric concentration of CO2 at that time was less than the level of 280ppm it was during our own pre-industrial times in 1850AD. Plant life requires 150ppm of CO2 for survival and the most desirable level has been assessed as 1,200ppm. Yet without the use of otherwise sequestered carbon in fossil fuels and consequent “carbon emissions”, all life on Earth may face extinction during the next 90,000 year Ice Age that our mokopuna encounter. To ensure that extra atmospheric CO2 is not considered a net good, the UN IPCC has sponsored many studies to promote the downside of ice loss (when there are none), the fate of polar bear extinction (while their numbers have always survived far hotter times than the present, and recent studies show their numbers are more than ever previously recorded), rapid sea level rise (when it has only been 1.3 to 1.8mm per year and will reverse as soon as cooling next begins), and ocean acidification (when every school child should know the ocean has a pH of 8.2 to 8.3 and is irrevocably saline and alkaline). Wide-ranging studies have been commissioned to show how bad global warming during the Modern Warm Period is. The problem is that humanity only ever advanced and prospered during the cyclic warm periods and was always set back during cold spells. To suit the criminal aspirations of certain parties attempting to wrest control at the UN, **we are lied to that cold is good and warm is bad**. So the UN IPCC fraud is cloaked in fakery and scientific sophistry. **The climate fraud is now institutionalised and supported by most OECD scientists in every institution which relies on Government funding. Even our national airline supports the fraud with carbon trading schemes.** Months ago I hoped three questions could be resolved by a declaratory judgement from the NZ High Court. 1. Do human “carbon emissions” cause climate change? (hint: I can prove they don’t!) 2. Is CO2 a pollutant or a gas essential for all life on Earth? (hint: this is a no-brainer!) 3. Is it possible to alter the climate by reducing NZ’s “carbon emissions”? (hint: refer 1\. above) I approached a major Auckland legal firm and secured the names of the four most appropriate barristers to represent me. One claimed pressure of work because it was outside his firm’s scope of practice. The other three claimed to have existing clients who would require and remunerate the barrister in question to represent them, rather than for that person to represent me in this matter. **So much for the justice system!** **How then does our society protect our children, if no one will fight for the truth?** and Why do we have pseudo-environmentalists governing us? They threaten our prosperity and very survival? For the last 540 million years every complex life form on Earth has been carbon-based. Every animal and human exhales 100 times the carbon dioxide we inhale and plants return us the favour of inhaling our CO2 and exhaling oxygen. Because I exhale 360kg of CO2 per year how much carbon tax must I pay to exist? *If you enjoyed this BFD article please share it.*